In case congress has a change of heart and wants to hold Bondi, Patel, Blanche in contempt of congress for violating the EFTA.
Example: EFTA02440040
In case congress has a change of heart and wants to hold Bondi, Patel, Blanche in contempt of congress for violating the EFTA.
Example: EFTA02440040
It does match his name. This was a regex search, looking for variations (Don/Donald + T). This is some newbie shit regex searching because this regime hires fucking dipshits. They probably did a search for don(ald)? (t.*)? because they are morons and just blanked out whatever it found. This isn’t even a smart redaction. There isn’t another option that fits as perfectly as “don t” (And I think anyone would bet thousands on that being the exact spelling censored.) So, yes, it is evidence that they are censoring instances of Trump’s name. You might not like it, but this is basic regex search failing that a first job programmer would do because their standards are paste-eaters and wife-beaters. Sorry that you feel that it isn’t evidence, but it definitely is, and you have no counterpoint to that.
Regardless, bad faith actors (like yourself) always attack the attitude and never the substance and pretend to be victims, so I don’t particularly feel bad for you. I frankly believe you should be banned from this site for your fake haughtiness.
you clearly do not know the meaning of the word haughty. i demonstrate:
yes, i understand the original claim that a regular expression was used to “auto censor Don T resulting in blacked out ‘don’t’ words.” im quite sure you will recall from having actually read the comment, but that claim is the thing i was pointing out as needing substantiation in the first place. per my previous comment,
you: “YoU aTtAcK tHe AtTiTuDe NoT tHe SuBsTaNcE”
literally me:
and what aubstance am i supposed to attack? your bad attitude is the only thing approaching substance to respond to. expanding on the technical details of the claim, insisting on your claimed explanation’s plausibility (which i have repeatedly acknowledged), speculating on the specific spelling of the redacted word (i may have strained a muscle in my eye rolling it at this vapid piece of sophistry) are not demonstrations of a larger pattern. you are the one saying this regex redaction is definitely censoring “don t”. if thats true, there are literally millions of chances to show other instances of the word being redacted. do the work lazybones, its called a burden of proof for a reason. for my part, i suspect that since this is the first and only time im hearing about this, and because ive read his wholeass name dozens of times in there, youre gonna be looking for a while.
i dont give a cold turd what you feel about me oor whether you think im a victim or how badly youd like to punish me: i particularly dont feel good for you. go get an instance if you want the thrill of cheap power. mod spots are to be had for the asking on .world.
now i dun tried to be polite with you and you ain takin the hint, so since youve decided to be so frank with me (not to say forthright) im sure you wont mind if i return your kindness to you: frankly, get the fuck out of my inbox, buddy.
You did it again, pal. You should see a doctor about that. Like, one o’ them head doctors what do the fancy talk.
Anyway, sorry that you feel this way about things and that you like those wife-beaters or whatever, maybe they won’t beat your wife if you get some good knee pads! It hasn’t worked for anyone else, but you have a certain way with observable reality, and God will bless your little heart!
Have the day you believe in, friendo.